Sunday, April 18, 2010

Would better modules have helped 4e succeed more?

Beyond marketing, beyond retro-red-box look-and-feel gimmicks, I think the main thing that grows this hobby is people having a good time playing D&D, and wanting to share that good time with their friends. A requirement for a good time is a good DM. Not everyone is a good DM, and the are probably more bad than good ones out there. Especially at the early stages of their DM'ing careers.

I think that one of the greatest benefits of good modules is that it makes a DM better than he normally would be. This drives more fun at the table, which in turn drives growth of the hobby.

I think it's admirable of WOTC (God, it hurt my fingers to type those words) to actually reach out to folks and ask for help in their modules design---they wanted feedback on what they were doing right and what they were doing wrong, and what they could do better.

That being said, would better modules have helped 4e succeed to a much greater degree than it has? Or are the systemic differences from earlier editions the main drawback in getting people on board? What do you think is the greater detriment to 4e's growth? The lack of good modules? Or the system?

(BTW thats a great thread to read to see what people want in a module in general, just just 4e modules, for anyone out there who is designing their own for other editions.)